Hey! The guy who ordered the low angle stanley jackplane. How is it?! Im sure you've got it by now. Ive been waiting for you to post about it by now.
Yeah it's alright
No it's awful
>>989947
no strong feelings one way or the other
Okay, to be honest I was the OP of that thread.
To be short, at first I was pissed, then I was pleased. I'll post the plane and some shavings soon, along with a mini review.
I don't know.
As promised, here it is, my new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62 low-angle jack plane.
This is actually the second one. The first one I received- someone had clearly messed with it, disassembled it, dropped it off a two story building, then stuck it back in the box with the cap iron and iron loose in the box. During shipping the iron was jangling about, wreaking havoc to the plane's handles and iron body. So I returned it and requested another one be sent. This is the replacement and it is almost perfect in fit and finish.
See that big chunk of metal between the body and the cap iron? That's the blade - 3/16" of A2 steel - I am really happy with the blade. My other planes, $10 jobs that do nothing but destroy wood. My 1920s vintage Stanley No 5's blade is about 1/3 the thickness. This made a huge difference because instead of the blade chattering and destroying the surface of the wood it glides over it and cuts a beautiful shaving. So yes, I don't think vintage planes hold a candle to what's out there nowadays. They never made the irons this thick before. To paraphrase Matthias Wandel, hand tool enthusiasts today are basically tool fetishists first and foremost, and boutique manufacturers like Lie-Nielsen and Veritas and the like build them to suit. I honed it to square (the blade was slightly off-square out of the box) and took it to a succession of grits - all the way to a 5-micron mirror finish for the microbevel.
So if you're like me and you're used to either the bottom-of-the-barrel of today's planes or flea market antique planes - the moment you pick up a modern "premium" plane you will be very surprised at how beefed everything up is.
Translucent, paper thin shavings were had with hardly any effort. If you're used to Lie-Nielsen stuff this is no surprise, but to me it was a revelation.
Other details: I checked the sides for square, and the bottom was flat and machined nicely. I laid it down on my table saw's cast iron top and could not insert a 2.5 mil feeler gauge anywhere. Doesn't quite confirm that it's perfect, but it's good enough for me.
Leaves a flawless surface on rock maple. This is probably more due to how painstakingly I honed the blade than anything else, but the fact that the beefiness of the plane iron left no opportunity for chatter was no small factor.
>>990613
>I am really happy with the blade
Protip: the are called plane 'irons' not blades. Its like saying your scored a point in baseball. You will be mocked if you said that around someone more experienced.
>>990400
>>990628
I don't really give a fuck, to be quite honest, family. It's a sharpened piece of metal. It's a blade.
>>990659
you will be triggering any old carpenters you come in contact with, or they will think you're an idiot and treat you as such
>>990607
>>990613
>>990615
>>990617
Thanks Old OP. I was curious as to if the woodcraft bro was right about them being decent and serviceable. seems like they mostlt are. clearly they have a quality control issue over at Stanley, but as long as you fight for your product seems they will give in.
I have to agree about the old planes having dinky ass blades.. what I've been wanting to do with my older planes is get replacement blades remade for all of them. in like 1/8th O2 stuff. lmao. the placement of the cap iron also matters too, and how much contact it has between itself and the blade, and the blade to the frog. all makes a huge difference in chatter. if you're like me, maybe get a plane once a year, restoring one over say 1/2 months and getting it more perfect then it ever was meant to be, is fine with me.
Thanks for coming back. and doing the write up.
